My Frustration with Canadian Police

It’s no secret that the public’s trust in police officers is at an all time low. This isn’t because Canadian police are dirty, in fact I will fight that allegation until I’m blue in the face. The problem is the American media’s portrayal of police in the United States. Things are different down there, especially when it comes to policing. Canadians have a sense of all being in this together. In the States, they are indoctrinated into a militaristic capitalist society. This means they glorify violence and strive to compete against each other, rather than cooperate. While related, that’s an entirely different essay. My point is policing competitive violent people is much different than policing cooperative people. They have to play by a different set of rules than we see in Canada, so it’s a lot rougher and the media has a heyday selling newspapers and web hits based on the violence, which is often necessary down south.

In Canada, we don’t have nearly as much violence, and our police get to be nice guys more often. However, our brainwashing by the American media is changing our attitudes towards police so that we’re afraid of them. When we fear them we will lash out at them. When we start to lash out at them, they will fear us. When the police fear us, they’re more likely to hurt us. Let’s stop this downward spiral of hate and fear. Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Now, we’re getting close to where my frustration with police happens. Policing standards and professionalism dictates that police agencies do not engage the irritated public on social media. This makes sense. I’ve attended several training sessions on how to handle online reviews, and they all say “don’t feed the trolls.” If you engage the morons that just want to be heard, the noise will far outweigh any useful information. Where this differs in policing and public relations is, the morons that just want to be heard are being heard, and nobody is hearing any useful information.

In a very recent case in Edmonton Alberta, a man protected his mother from two hijackers. He tackled and subdued the first one, and then he tracked down and dragged the second one three blocks back to his place to wait for police. Police arrested and charged the carjackers, but they also arrested and charged the man who defended his mother. Link to the Edmonton Sun's Story

Naturally, people are jumping all over this. There’s comments about dirty police, stupid police, corrupt systems, corrupt police, and evil police. I don’t believe this is the case. There are several sections of the Criminal Code at play here, plus some of what I think is fine police work.

Any person in Canada may use reasonable force to stop an offense. Beating the tar out of possibly armed men while they are threatening your mother, without getting into too many detailed variables, is fine. Morally, I think you have a responsibility to do so. Also, any person may arrest without warrant any person they find committing a criminal offense, and deliver him forthwith to a peace officer. This means that tackling and holding the first one while you wait for police is just fine. In fact, I believe this was the morally responsible thing to do again. Assuming he didn’t go overboard and continue beating the guy’s face into hamburger after he was subdued, the police would not have a problem with this.

He caught up to the other guy 3 blocks away. This is where the law starts working against our hero. After he subdued the first guy and go looking for the second, he was no longer using force to stop an offense. At the same time, the “finds committing” clause in Section 494 of the Criminal Code also no longer applied. He found someone who he believed had committed an offense and assaulted him. This is assault, black and white. Citizens can’t do that. There are other factors involved the media doesn’t report on, like the level of force used, but since it wasn’t reported, I won’t elaborate on those laws.

Now with this knowledge, do you still believe the police are out of line? I hope not. They are enforcing the law as it is written, and what more can we possibly ask of them? That’s their job. You don’t get to pick and choose what parts of your job you’re going to do, and neither do they. Was this guy in the wrong to go get the second guy and bring him back for police to deal with? I don’t think so, but the Criminal Code says he is. I think this is fine police work, but a flawed Criminal Code. It is up to the Federal Government to change that statute in relation to defense of self, others, and property. Possibly also a change to the citizen arrest section.

If you still think the police are out of line, you’re either not paying attention, or you’re just not very smart.

Now this is where I get frustrated with Canadian Police. I should not be explaining to anybody how self defense and citizen arrest law works in Canada. A Deputy Chief of the Edmonton Police Service should be holding a public press conference, and posting it on their Facebook page.

The public’s distrust of the police comes from a lack of understanding. Since we started watching cartoons as a child, we’ve become familiar with the phrase, “People fear what they don’t understand.” For fuck sakes, because of liability concerns, most police services don’t even do ridealongs anymore!

It is the moral responsibility of Canadian Police Services to inform and educate the public. Rather than allowing a watered down, just-the-facts press release let the media tell part of the story and then let everyone else’s imagination run wild with the rest, tell the whole story. Explain why charges were laid. This isn’t pandering, and this isn’t just good public relations.  This is officer safety and long-term survival of Canadian police officers.

I hope that important people within policing read this. I hope that politicians read this. And for goodness sake, if you’re a member of the media, ask why once in a while.

Fight Back Against the Police!!! Wait, that was a bad idea...

Don't fight the police on the street. If you do, you'll get hurt. Fight them in the courtroom. That's what it's for. If you don't like the court system, vote for a candidate that will fix the court system, or run for office yourself.

Don't ambush, assassinate, execute, hunt down, and murder police. You think they're violent now? Just wait. While this certainly isn't the most scholarly thing I've ever said, WATCH ROBOCOP. Ignore the story of Murphy, and just pay attention to what the city of Detroit looks like. That's what you're working towards. Eventually, some corporation is gonna come along with the genius idea of privatizing policing, and using military grade drones to get the job done. The government is gonna be like, "Awesome. We want nothing to do with this shitstorm anymore. Take our money and have at 'er."

The premeditated and organized killing of police will have one of two effects in each jurisdiction, and every jurisdiction will see it happen to varying degrees.

Option 1: The police will step it up. You're looking at martial law. If you see a police officer, you know he will be scared and angry at any given time. Any sudden movement, and you're dead. Police will no longer patrol as we know it now. Police will travel only in force, and respond to calls only with overwhelming force. If someone gets called in for driving unsafe, they will be stopped with a spike belt, approached by a fully armed and armoured tactical unit, and taken down hard. Only once the suspect and police are secure in the fortified compound will the investigation begin.

Option 2: The police will protest. Do you know what a police protest looks like? It's not picket signs and irritating traffic. THEY GO HOME. If police officers obviously aren't safe at work, they're going to stop going to work. This goes one of two ways:

Option 2 A) Seriously understaffed police services cannot help people who need help. Anarchy takes over. This isn't the overly romanticized punk rock anarchy. This is the only the strong survive, everyone is out for himself, whoever has the most guns is in charge anarchy. Justice is out the window, now it's just a power game, and there are no bystanders or innocents. Eventually it evolves to a feudal system.

Option 2 B) Police leaders don't give up, but they can't hire good police anymore. They can hire only the losers off the street that really enjoy hurting people. Take what you can get. Now there are no good police. Now the police are the corrupt, evil bastards that you see in other countries. The good police officers that kept the bad ones in check have gone home and circled the wagons to protect their families.

The answer is absolutely NOT "fight back." The answer is "stop making the police fight you." Some of them really enjoy the excuse. Just comply. If they're in the wrong, attack their career.

CNN's Story

Policing Freedom

On the day that America celebrates its Independence Day, I reflect on the main tenet America was founded upon - freedom. Canada was founded in a much different way, but on the same basic tenet. What happened to our freedom?

Sure the United States passed its Bill of Rights, and we passed our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, slowly and democratically, we are giving our freedom away. Especially in America, we have recreated the aristocracy. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, just like so many times in history before violent uprisings.

We elect our representatives, considering a 40% turnout to be an excellent turnout of voters. That means that the majority of the minority is actually electing our representatives. The rest of us can't be bothered, because we simply can't be bothered. Even if we do vote, we fill out our ballot, and stop paying attention. Whomever we elected can do whatever the hell they want, and we don't pay attention. We are actually happier being told what to do... until someone tells us what to do.

When someone tells us what to do, it is usually a police officer, speaking on behalf of the democratically elected government, which was "democratically" elected by the majority of the people who could be bothered to give a shit and vote. Then we vilify the police officer, who is obviously being an asshole and infringing on our freedoms because he is a jackbooted thug with a gun who feels entitled and is powertripping. Right? Right?

When a democratically elected government, whether municipal, provincial, or federal makes a stupid law, don't fight the guy who has been told by that government to enforce it. He is going to win. It's not his job to debate with you, or explain it to you, or reason with you, or even decide if it's right or wrong. It's his job to impose the will of the government on you. If the will of the government is stupid and unfair, it's still his job. He doesn't have to like it, but he does have to win the fight. Period. The police officer's job description in two sentences: "Impose the will of the government. Period." Fortunately, we live somewhere that the government's will is usually benevolent, so Community Policing, involvement, serving, and protecting, is part of that will.

Before you get pissed off at a police officer for enforcing a stupid ass law, maybe take a look at the jackasses that voted for the people who passed that law. Then go have a chat with the elected officials. Take part in the democratic process. Don't complain that the rules are stupid and get mad at the guy whose job it is to enforce them, get involved and help CHANGE THE RULES.

Taber’s Community Standards Bylaw

When this bylaw hit the news, I was approached by a lot of people who wanted me to hear their opinion, and a few who wanted to hear mine.

Background – "The Mennonite Problem"

In Taber, we have a very high population of Mexican Mennonites. They value hard work and close family. The Mexican Mennonites and a distinctive style and way of life that makes them visibly different from other Taberites. We aren't all that different in truth, but our differences breed distrust and fear. They don't integrate into the rest of Taber's society, choosing instead to segregate themselves into their own Mennonite schools, and observing their own holidays in addition to our own. The lack of integration and lack of understanding going both ways has a tendency to perpetuate itself through the actions of individuals. Someone will say something along the lines of "Those Mennos are at it again," and the Mennonites will say something along the lines of "Those Gringos are at it again." We just keep offending each other and making the situation worse. I'm sure that a few generations down the line, this problem will be a thing of the past, but right now it's a legitimate social problem.
I'm certainly no sociologist, and there may be people who disagree with me. I can think of one person in particular who has a degree in Sociology that has expressed interest in reading my post, so I'm hoping my opinions turn out to be intelligent ones. When you speak to the more mainstream Taberites, they often speak of "The Mennonite Problem." This isn't meant to be ignorant or bigoted, as some of these people are very intelligent, tolerant, and friendly. The Mennonite Problem is that the Mennonite youth tends to congregate in public areas on Sunday afternoons after Church in large numbers. Not a problem, right? In fact, all Canadians have the guaranteed right to peaceful assembly under Section 2(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are 2 aspects to the actual problem at hand. The first aspect is that this is a large group of youths, which in all cultures has a tendency to act without respect, seek immediate gratification, often in the form of physical or chemical pleasures, and leave a mess behind when it leaves. The second aspect of the problem is that there is a large group of people we don't understand taking up space in our parks, parking lots, and other public areas. Because we don't understand them, we are uncomfortable joining them, and that affects our own enjoyment of those facilities.
The Mennonite Problem has been widely talked about throughout Taber. I'm probably the first person to put the words "Mennonite Problem" in writing because everyone is afraid of being seen as a bigot. We could probably come up with a better name for it, but that's what the layman is calling it behind closed doors. I haven't approached the Taber Police Service (TPS – including Bylaw Services) for any official position and I have not been authorized by them to speak on their behalf, but I'm going to comment based on my own observations. TPS has been under a lot of pressure from the community to "deal" with the Mennonite Problem. That's a pretty open-ended directive, isn't it? Does that mean to drive the Mennonites out of town? They are Canadian Citizens, and are also protected by Section 6(2)(a) of the Charter of Rights, which says any Canadian can live in any municipality they choose. Stop them from meeting in large numbers? No, we're back to Section 2(c) of the Charter. There is nothing wrong with their being here and hanging out in public areas. The only actual problem is the way they behave when they assemble. That problem isn't because they're Mennonites, it's because it's a large group of unsupervised young people.

Solving the Mennonite Problem

Of course, TPS has some tools available to address the behaviour of the Mennonites. Section 175(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code says

175. (1) Every one who

• (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
  • (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

is guilty of an offence…
    There are also several criminal laws in place for dealing with drinking, spitting, urinating, and damaging property. Now, imagine that you're the police officer on duty, and you head over to the Community Centre because it's Sunday and you know there's going to be a large assembly of young Mennonites hanging out. Given the demographic, there's very likely to be some individuals within that group that are drinking, fighting, yelling, swearing, urinating, spitting, or just generally looking for trouble. Is it really worth reading the Riot Act to disperse the entire crowd? The innocent ones will likely go home, or they'll go looking for trouble because they've been unfairly treated. The troublemakers are just going to go cause trouble elsewhere. Is it actually going to be productive to sift through this crowd, picking one or two out of it and charging them criminally for getting a little wild while hanging out with their friends? That means you have to detain them, investigate fully, collect witness statements (what are the odds the witnesses are going to be cooperative?), and issue a Summons to Criminal Court next Tuesday. Then you're going to have to go through the trouble of criminal court proceedings for something that's actually pretty minor when you think about it. It seems a little excessive, doesn't it?
    TPS needed another tool in their toolbox for dealing with The Mennonite Problem, because the answer is not criminal charges. Council was also feeling the same pressure that TPS was feeling, and had actually been contributing to a lot of the pressure on TPS. The people in Taber wanted a solution to The Mennonite Problem. In response to this need, Council passed the Community Standards Bylaw, which is kind of an omnibus bylaw that combines Taber's already existing bylaws for curfew, noise, panhandling, loitering, and graffiti. It added to it a bylaw infraction for Disturbing the Peace, which gives police the ability to write a bylaw ticket to the offending person, rather than drag them through the criminal court system.

Media Coverage

    Where Council made their biggest mistake with this bylaw was by allowing the Taber Times to write the story about it without any help, or prepared statements. Mayor Henk DeVlieger is quoted as saying "I'm not saying this thing is perfect, but I think we should give it a chance and try it out, and let the police work with it. After a period of time, we might make some adjustments, but let's see how it works." I agree with the spirit of what His Worship is trying to convey, but the feeling of "It's not quite right, but let's pass the bylaw anyways" isn't going to sit well with residents of Taber. Trevor Busch wrote a very good article, which reported the facts straight down the middle. Council lacked the foresight to provide the Times with a press release, explaining the bylaw. Now, Busch's well-written article has been getting the attention of Global News, the National Post, the Herald, and so many others who are going to spin it way out of context. The next mistake made by Council was naming it the Community Standards Bylaw, which just screams "We have the power, and we will control what you do. Welcome to the Nanny State of Taber." The last is combining all these bylaws into one, which seems like a good idea on the surface, but causes panic when combined with the other two mistakes.

Resident Concerns

    Now, I have been seeing and hearing so many concerns. None of them are actually founded, but the wording of the bylaw leaves a lot up to the discretion of TPS. For the administration of law enforcement, it's always best to keep the wording open-ended and leave as much as possible up to the discretion of the attending officer. That way, they can deal with a wider range of problems without unnecessarily complicated jargon. However, the open-endedness of the bylaw's language is leaving everyone very uncomfortable. Here is a cross section of the concerns I've been hearing:

brilang says:

MARCH 10, 2015 AT 12:06 PM

Portions of this bylaw will be struck down at the first court challenge. It contravenes Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms several different ways.
1. "No person shall yell, scream, or swear in any public place" contravenes Freedom of Speech
2. "No person shall be a member of the assembly of three or more persons in any public place where a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe the assembly will disturb the peace of the neighbourhood, and any such person shall disperse as requested by a peace officer" contravenes Freedom of Peaceful Assembly

Sorry Taber, but you cannot regulate what people say, or think. Only what they do.

What "brilang" is missing is that we have no "Freedom of Speech". Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Also, that if a peace officer truly has reasonable grounds to believe the assembly with disturb the peace, that it is no longer a Peaceful Assembly, and is not and should not be protected.

"I'm a loud talker/Kids make noise in my backyard/Cornfest is pretty noisy"

The administration of the Noise part of the bylaw is up to the officer at the scene. If your kids are making noise, he's probably not going to care. I think there has been a bylaw to this effect on the books for quite some time, and there have been very few issues with how it's been handled in the past. I haven't actually researched it, but I'm pretty sure damn near every municipality has a similar bylaw in effect. Police and bylaw officers need a tool to deal with legitimate noise complaints. Maybe the wording could be a little better?

"It's a cash grab"

Without actually consulting the act, my understanding of the Municipal Government Act is that the municipality has only 2 punitive actions available to them. Fines, and solving the problem for you and sending you the bill. Again, most of these rules were already in place, and most of us didn't even notice. The purpose is not to increase revenue, it's to give the police an effective tool.

"I swear a lot"

Control it in public. It's just decent. No police officer in his right mind is going to be walking through a crowd at Cornfest and write someone a ticket for dropping the "F" bomb in a casual conversation. This is for when someone is really getting out of hand and needs to be told to shut up. Again, the open-ended wording give the police a lot of room for interpretation, and that's what makes people uncomfortable.

Ty's Bottom Line

I feel that this new bylaw can be an effective tool, but like all tools, it can also be misused. Just like a screwdriver can be used as a shiv, this bylaw can be used by an officer having a bad day to treat people unfairly. I think the people of Taber would feel much better if the wording was tightened to leave a little less to the discretion of police officers, but that also might decrease the bylaw's effectiveness. Dulling a knife so no one gets cut just leaves you with a dull knife. We need to place a certain amount of trust in our police officers, and our police officers need to continue to strive for worthiness of that trust.

Resources

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html

http://taber.ca/DocumentCenter/View/1006

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

http://www.tabertimes.com/news/2015/03/04/community-standards-bylaw-passed/

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=taber+bylaw&safe=off&tbm=nws

Idiot Truckers

Today, several semi trucks were blown over by strong winds. This happened at great cost to businesses and individuals. Worse, it happened at great risk to human lives. Why don't we have a government agency in place to warn people about dangerous winds?

Oh. We do.

The fact that at least 5 trucks were blown over on the highway today is inexcusable. The drivers of these trucks were operating a weapon more dangerous than any firearm in dangerous conditions, and they should be criminally liable for their actions.

The story